Hemşire Kültürel Yeterlik Ölçeği

Content Validity Index. The extent of agreement between the expert team members was assessed by using a content validity index in the study. The members evaluated the feasibility and relevance of each item in the scale by rating them from 1 (not relevant) to 4 (very relevant) as follows: 1 = not relevant; 2 = unable to assess relevance without item revision or item is in need of such revision that it would no longer be relevant; 3 = relevant but needs minor alteration; 4 = very relevant. The CVI of the scale was calculated by dividing the number of items rated 3 or 4 by the total number of items, and the value greater than 80% was regarded as a standard for testing expert validity The CVI was 0.98 for the NCCS-T, which meant that the scales were feasible for further use

Content Validity Index. The extent of agreement between the expert team members was assessed by using a content validity index in the study. The members evaluated the feasibility and relevance of each item in the scale by rating them from 1 (not relevant) to 4 (very relevant) as follows: 1 = not relevant; 2 = unable to assess relevance without item revision or item is in need of such revision that it would no longer be relevant; 3 = relevant but needs minor alteration; 4 = very relevant. The CVI of the scale was calculated by dividing the number of items rated 3 or 4 by the total number of items, and the value greater than 80% was regarded as a standard for testing expert validity The CVI was 0.98 for the NCCS-T, which meant that the scales were feasible for further use

Content Validity Index. The extent of agreement between the expert team members was assessed by using a content validity index in the study. The members evaluated the feasibility and relevance of each item in the scale by rating them from 1 (not relevant) to 4 (very relevant) as follows: 1 = not relevant; 2 = unable to assess relevance without item revision or item is in need of such revision that it would no longer be relevant; 3 = relevant but needs minor alteration; 4 = very relevant. The CVI of the scale was calculated by dividing the number of items rated 3 or 4 by the total number of items, and the value greater than 80% was regarded as a standard for testing expert validity The CVI was 0.98 for the NCCS-T, which meant that the scales were feasible for further use